Engelbeen on why he thinks the CO2 increase is man made (part 3)

I agree that the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere is probably our fault, but this article’s logic isn’t entirely convincing.
“The increase in CO2 in the atmosphere wasn’t caused by oceans or vegetation, so it must’ve been caused by human emissions.”
Isn’t this much the same as the warmists when they say “we don’t know what else could have caused the rise in temperatures since 1975, therefore it must have been human-emitted CO2”?
The argument from ignorance is only evidence of our ignorance.

Dear Ferdinand,
There is nothing to be learned beside the point that when you burn fossil fuel you create CO2. Also that you can track this CO2 due to it’s special Isotope-ratio(s) does not help you with the critical question: While anthropogenic CO2 is produced and also found in the atmosphere and the oceans, it however does not tell you anything about the reason of the increased atmospheric concentration.
What natural CO2-level we would have in the atmosphere assuming the recent temperature increase but without burning any fossil fuel?

And what effect does this increasing level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere have on the climate?
If any? Please cite peer reviewed papers, again, if any.

Aren’t there naturally burning peat and coal fires that have been around for thousands of years?
Burning Mountain in New South Wales is estimated at about 6000 years old, I think.

It might be interesting to see the time line axis of the CO2 isotope graph extended out 10,000 and 100,000 years. Are there other periods of variability in the CO2 isotope mix?
Also, how would the graphs look if the axis were adjusted to show the range of the change more accurately?

That map seems instead a map of distribution of cattle.

Ben M:

I agree that the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere is probably our fault, but this article’s logic isn’t entirely convincing.
“The increase in CO2 in the atmosphere wasn’t caused by oceans or vegetation, so it must’ve been caused by human emissions.”
Isn’t this much the same as the warmists when they say “we don’t know what else could have caused the rise in temperatures since 1975, therefore it must have been human-emitted CO2″?

No-one says “we don’t know what else could have caused” either of these things. We know that fossil fuels release CO2; we know that humans have burned more than enough to account for the observed rise. Therefore, humans have cause the rise. If there is another source equal to the human source, there must be a sink equal to that, and it remains true that if humans had not burned all that fossil fuel, CO2 would not have increased.
Similarly, we know that CO2 and other greenhouse gases control the radiative balance of the atmosphere. We know that concentrations of greenhouse gases have gone up, and calculations show that the increase should cause a temperature rise comparable to that observed. If there is another unknown agent causing a temperature rise of that magnitude, there must also be some second unknown agent causing a cooling of equal magnitude, and it remains true that if greenhouse gas concentrations hadn’t risen, the temperature wouldn’t have risen.
Not only would vast unknown sources and sinks of CO2 and vast unknown climate variables have to exist, they would have had to not exist at any time in the last several thousand years, only to come into play at the same time that humans started burning fossil fuels in quantities sufficient to alter atmospheric composition.
Occam’s Razor is the scientific principle which we can make very good use of here.

This is all very interesting, but so what?
The level of CO2 in the atmosphere has been far higher than present, and things were copacetic then.

So in 1700, there were 3 molecules of CO2 per 10,000 of other molecules in the atmosphere, including hundreds of molecules of H2O. Now, there are 4 molecules of CO2 and hundreds of H2O molecules.
However, the anthropogenic warming allegedly started only in 1975. So there were 33 molecules of CO2 and thousands of H2O molecules per 100,000 molecules in the atmosphere, which didn’t caused human-induced “global warming”. But after 1975, the 34th molecule of CO2 (per 100,000 other molecules including thousands of H2O molecules) suddenly started catastrophic warming?
It is beating a dead horse. Until someone recognizes the warming effect of additional CO2 in polar regions, which have low humidity and therefore the “greenhouse effect” should be strengthened most, the discussion is equal to “how many angels have to push planets to fly on their orbits.”
Antarctic: CO2 definitely cools it, and prove that not.
http://climexp.knmi.nl/data/itlt_0-360E_-70–90N_na.png
Arctic: subtract the 30-year AMO cycle and solar activity and get NOTHING.
http://climexp.knmi.nl/data/icrutem3_hadsst2_0-360E_70-90N_n_mean1.png
By the way, where’ s the tropospheric hot spot, predicted by models?

Dave Dardinger says:
September 16, 2010 at 5:37 am
Sigh! Why don’t you fossil fuel deniers try actually engaging F. E.’s dicsussion?

—————–
Dave Dardinger,
Premature statement there Dave, show more patience. We are not yet 2 hrs into the comment period.
Critical reading and thinking are not so instantaneous.
You will get your wish.
John

Anyone who has participated in a controlled burn of a patch of prairie grass understands that pre-industrial humans facilitated enormous CO2 emissions. Here in the central USA where prairie savannah dominated the landscape, entire states where thought to have been routinely burned off (every 1 to 3 years) by Native Americans.

Enneagram says:
September 16, 2010 at 5:29 am
That map seems instead a map of distribution of cattle.
—————————
Lots of swimming cattle in west Atlantic 😉

If the recent well established greening of the planet is factored in, how much CO2 would be released as it decays? I am inclined to believe that the greening of the planet is likely a cyclical phenomenon such that it will hit a peak and then diminish, regardless of what caused the peak (better irrigation, wetter warmer climate, etc). This means that towards the downside slope of the greening peak, decaying vegetation will emit quite a bit of CO2 as opposed to using it up, and will emit more and more as greater amounts decay.

I have not been able to find an explanation of the following circumstances, and wonder whwther your investigations can offer anything:
> Looking at Vostok CO2 data in the periods : Present to
> 10,000 years ago, 130,000 years ago to 140,000 years ago, 230,000 years
> ago to 240,000 years ago, 315,000 years ago to 325,000 years ago
> (which I take to be equivalent periods in the last four climate
> cycles) I note that in the current cycle atmospheric CO2
> concentrations have been on a rising trend whilst temperatures were on
> a generally falling trend, whilst in the earlier periods both CO2 and
> temperatures were on a falling trend. Is there an accepted theory as
> to why this should be so? In view of low human populations 10,000
> years ago, it seems unlikely that anthropogenic factors can have
> influenced the change in behaviour?

Who cares? The argument is about whether increases in atmospheric CO2, beyond its current saturated levels, can cause CAGW – its that for which we await the proof.

Nice work. Hope to read what you think of UHI soon too. Seems to me concrete and steel and asphalt have a lot more to do with “man-made global warming” than CO2 AND there’s a lot of CO2 introduced into the atmosphere because of these three items. Looks like we’re slowly getting around to talking about the real problem; the BIG problem -UHI. Eventually, you can boil everything down to basics.

Hey Englebeen, where are the computations that show how much less CO2 the oceans release due to man’s CO2 release. You and the rest never talk about the partial pressure of gasses and how our raising it suppresses natural release.
The CO2 level would have gone up anyway!!! You need to show us that it would not have been as high without man’s CO2 and you are not doing that!!!!

Actually, as I understand it, isotopic carbon is preferentially sequestered with c13, mostly due to the reaction response rate, greater takeup energy requiring increased energy for release. How much of the ratio of such, at that point, would end up concentrated in lifeforms, thus preferentially ‘lightening’ the carbon in the cycle that is still ‘free’?
I fear one cannot have things both ways. It is either preferentially held within biology, or it is not. It requires increased time for the photosynthetic reaction to occur within the plant utilizing carbon 13 heavy co2, as well as increased activation energy for breaking the bond once formed.
A biological system may tend to release the energy that can be easily released preferentially. (hypothesis, testable). This would tend to sequester heavier carbon preferentially on death of the organism (hypothesis, testable). If so, would there not potentially be an experiment by which this could be determined, I.E. a closed system monitored for carbon 13 versus carbon 12 ratios in the atmosphere, checking for enrichment or depletion in-atmospheric carbon? Given the nature of the oxygen cycle, it would likely be effective to test it using photosynthetic algae.
If, indeed, a large percentage of the carbon dioxide is immediately taken up, there should be a change over time in the ratio of carbon (13) dioxide to carbon (12) dioxide.
Should the ratio remain stable, the experiment is falsified. If it is altered, the observation of ratios from coal and fossil fuels becomes meaningless in the debate, as it would be very difficult to maintain such a ratio if there is a preferential alteration.
It would appear C4 fixation of carbon is even more preferential than c3, and is a biologically ‘recent’ adaptation.
Anyone feel up to an experiment?

Food for thought.
“oil does not come exclusively, or even partly, from dinosaurs but is formed below the Earth’s 25-mile deep crust”
http://energy.probeinternational.org/fossil-fuels/endless-oil

Isn’t this trying to prove that the majority of increased co2 is from man, not that man is the cause of the increase? Clearly if man is producing 4molecules per 1000 and the atmospere is increasing by 2 per 1000 there is something else going on there. In a stable system with feedbacks stating that most of the co2 in the atmospere is from man burning fossil fuels does not prove that if man had not burnt the fossil fuels the equilibrium would not have been made another way. i.e. if there is a feed back mechanism equalising the concentrations of co2 between the atmosphere and the ocean – or plants and atmosphere the presence of man made co2 restricts output from another source.
That is not to say the concentration has not been increased by man, but in effect you would have to prove first that concentrations of co2 in the atmosphere would be different if man had not burnt the fuels. As soon as you are involved with feedbacks – which clearly you are because the concentration increase does not increase the amount produced by man – showing the cause of the co2 in the atmosphere does not prove that if man had not burnt the fuel the concentration would have been less.
Put in simpler terms, if we had not burnt the carbon more co2 may have been gassed from the oceans to compensate, because the current temperature requires more co2 in the atmosphere.

D. Patterson,
“Among the many flaws in the essay, the assumption that anthropogenic sources are the only possible explanation for increased d13Carb increases is among the fatal flaws to the argument.”
I think the article is saying that d13 is decreasing not increasing.

Roger. If methane is a “fossil fuel” and Saturn’s moon Titan is a big ball of methane it must mean one of two things.
Since the scientific concensus claims hydrocarbons are based on organic matter, and who can argue against scientific concensus, Titan was obviously a life bearing moon.

“I am left wondering who it is that says human beings are not adding CO2 to the atmosphere. That is true while at the same time adding more water vapor.
CH4 + 2O2 => 2H2O + CO2
More molecules of water are added to atmosphere by at least 2:1 and reducing O2. The real story then is that we will not be able to breath at some point in the distant future because we have burned up all the oxygen.”
Your equation was great, and then your conclusion became incredibly silly. At higher CO2 concentrations, all photosynthetic organisms photosynthesize at a higher rate, converting more CO2 BACK to O2. You have to include this equation as well.
Your conclusion assumes that there are no other chemical reactions going on than the one you listed, and that O2 is the “limiting reagent” for the equation you listed. Let me assure you that there are BIG reactions going on all of the time which counterbalance the reaction that you showed, and as such, it is HIGHLY unlikely that O2 is the limiting reagent.
Something truly bizzare would have to happen for the world to run out of Oxygen any time in the next few billion years.

When CO2 charged blood (venous blood) retention in the brain , brain begins to manufacture the most fantastic theories about CO2. Be very careful GWRS. as this condition leads to Auto-immune Illnesses.

Thanks Nylo,
I have added links to co2 http://antonuriarte.blogspot.com/ the Blog of Antón Uriarte, San Sebastián, Gipuzkoa, España.
It is good to see not all is lost in Spain!

This analysis is deeply flawed – there is not one mention of methane. One commenter touched upon it indirectly by mentioning that the analysis fails to consider bacteria. Methane is produced by bacteria, bacteria have twice the preference for carbon 12 as do plants (see the diagram in the OP showing methane at -50 compared to organic sources at -24, and methane released in the atmosphere degrades in less than a decade into CO2 and water vapor. As well, “fossil” methane exists in huge quantities as methane hydrate in both permafrost and in sea floor sediments both of which release the gas when warming occurs.
Methane concentration in the atmosphere more than doubled (715ppb in 1890 to 1732ppb in 1990) since the beginning of the industrial revolution. Interestingly the growth in atmospheric concentration has slowed significantly in the past decade.
Good article: “The Other Greenhouse Gas”
http://www.scienceline.org/2007/03/env_knight_ipcccows/
At any rate there’s an elephant in the room named “Methane” that can handily explain the decline in atmospheric C13. Why is there mention of it in the OP?
Engelbeen on manmade CO2: FAIL

“””” This adds to the evidence that fossil fuel burning is the main cause of the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere… “”””
Well Englebeen; thanks very much for a very well detailed presentation of the whole Carbon Isotope question. It is certainly the most readable and informative presentation of that subject I have ever seen; so I am going to print it out and add itto my collection of Climate related papers.
However with regard to the heading I pasted from your paper. It’s nt the first time I have seen that stated. Everybody pushing the man-made GW story says that; so I guess it must be true.
Well no it doesn’t. What you have presented does not make that case. What it does establish, is that it is quite apparent that somewhere along the line of the recent history of Atmospheric CO2 and its changes, a NEW SOURCE of carbon started to be incorporated into the total carbon cycle (short term) as a result of human burning of fossil fuels. It DOES NOT prove that that particular source of new carbon is responsible for the increased amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.
Now let me make myself clear on this point. I am NOT arguing that CO2 is NO going up in the atmosphere; I am not arguing that human activities are NOT the cause of (at least some of) that increased CO2 in the atmosphere. I’m simply saying that our burning of fossil fuels is certainly releasing to the atmosphere a new source of carbon that exhibits a difefrent signature; but the isotope argument doesn’t prove that all of the increase consists of fossil fuel carbon.
We could illustrate the point by saying; suppose that we discovered in America a humungous expanse of new petroleum; that just came gushing out of every well we put down there and gave us a dirt cheap local source of super high quality petroleum that we exploited to the maximum. But this source of petroleum is weird; it contains a sizeable percentage of Argon; for unknown reasons; and so much Argon that we don’t know what to do with it; so we just let it vent off as we let the oil gush out.
We can expect that if we had been collecting data on Argon in the atmosphere all these years; that we would start to see an upturn in the amount of Argon in the atmosphere as we extracted more of this weird oil and vented the Argon.
Somebody who observed this data and knew of this particular deposit; could reasonably conjecture that we must be tapping that pool of weird oil.
Same thing with the CO2 isotope story. Yes it demonstrates that carbon from fossil fuel sources is entering the environment as a result of our use of fossil fuel deposits. It does not prove that that is the cause of the increase in atmopsheric CO2 (although that very well might be true).
Many years ago, I was involved in the deposition of epitaxial Gallium Arsenide Phosphide, onto Gallium Arsenide wafers to make LEDs. We made our own Epitaxial Reactors, and I personally designed and built a part of the reactor that handled and controlled the gas mixtures.
We would start the process, by injecting into the reactor (after a purging cycle) a stream of Hydrogen that contained a low percentage of Arsine (AsH3). This gas would percolate through a fine long capillary that was wound up inside a three litre bottle that filled with the gas, and then exited out the other end of the bottle to the reactor to grow a layer of pure GaAs on the wafers. After establishing a steady growth and growing a base layer of GaAs, the gas flow of the Arsine mixture was dropped about about 40% ans simultaneously a new source of Hydrogen replaced the missing gas; and the new source contained Phosphine (PH3) , so the total hydrogen flow rate into the capillary remained unchanged; but now the composition changed from only an Arsine additive to a 60/40 mix of AsH3/PH3; and the change was instantaneous. This mixture was injected into the capillary and thence into the three litre bottle which was already full of Hydrogen plus a 100% content of Arsine. So the reactor continued to grow a 100% gallium Arsenide epi layer; but as the new mixture was added into the three litres of hydrogen mixture, the percentage of Arsine slowly dropped, while the percentage of Phosphine slowly increased; all automatically controlled by simple gas mixing laws; with no process controlelrs needed. The changing gas mixture now started to deposit a changing composition epi layer slowly grading from 100% gaAs to a GaAs0.6P0.4 mixed crystal that made the then highest efficiency Red LEDs. The smooth grading process followed the normal exponential time constant curve dictated by the volume of the bottle and the lenght and diameter of the capillary , along with the total flow rate.
Actually, it was a bit more complicated than that, since we put three such capillary/bottles in series to give a synchronous three pole low pass filter, that changed the grading profile to a near Gaussian transition.
The final gas composition mixture entering the reactor to grow the material could have been monitored; and simply revealed how the composition slowly changed merely as a result of an instantaneous step change in starting conditions launched by doign the Arsine Phosphine switch.
Same thin is happening with the earth atmosphere; the fossil fuel content of the atmospheric carbon continues to increase; because we have continuously been using a new source of energy that contains that carbon and releasing its end product (CO2 ) to the atmosphere. The fact that the total CO2 is going up, is a quite separate issue fromt eh fact that we burn fossil fuels.
And I repeat; Iam NOT claiming that humans are not the source of the increase in CO2; I don’t know what is; It is interesting that it is just 800 years since the mediaeval warm period when the earth Temperatures were hotter than now; and 800 years seems to be the propagation delay enshrined in the paleo records of Temperature rise followed by CO2 rise 800 years later .(and fall too).
And again; thanks for the very detailed exposition; which I must digest in more detail.

Well done and clearly laid out.

The NASA map certainly puts the Kibosh on the notion that CO2 in the atmospehre is well mixed; and that appears to be a starting assumption in climate models. It clearly isn’t even approximately well mixed. To me; well mixed would eman that no matter where or when I took a sample of the atmosphere and analysed it, I would get the same composition on a molecular species (and isotopic) basis; at least within limits of differences that are of no consequence to any climate argument; and of course excluding taking a sample up somebody’s tailpipe or chimney.
One thing does puzzle me. The oceans and the atmosphere are presumably somewhat near equilibrium in the Henry’s Law sense as to the segregation of CO2 between atmosphere and ocean. And we are told that the carbon in deep water storage, is not getting out into the atmosphere. So why is it that the CO2 isotopic composition of the near surface ocean water, and the near surface atmosphere don’t match. Is somebody claiming (proof please) that the Henry’s Law Segregation at the interface is highly isotope dependent. I haven’t heard that claim made before. Why isn’t the ocean exchanging exactly the same isotopic CO2 with the atmospehre whether releasing or taking up ?

D. Patterson says:
September 16, 2010 at 7:15 am
Among the many flaws in the essay, the assumption that anthropogenic sources are the only possible explanation for increased d13Carb increases is among the fatal flaws to the argument. It is well known among geologists that the bloom of calcerous marine marine plankton have been responsible for substantially positive excursions of d13C whenever nutrient levels and a warming environment have encouraged their growth and emissions.
==================================================
Same thing on land D.
Fertilizer and soil bacteria
Not even mentioning farming practices, fertilizer and bacteria, made me turn off to this “study”. Makes my opinion of it “total hogwash”

Smokey, of course it follows. You think concentrations would have shot up anyway, if humans had never burned any fossil fuels? How would they have done that?
There has never been a “theory of natural climate variability”. Physics tells us that greenhouse gases play a key role in determining atmospheric temperatures. CO2 is and has always been a greenhouse gas, and if its concentration varies, atmospheric temperatures vary. Fourier and Tyndall discovered this back in the 1800s. How come you’re still ignorant of it?
CO2 is indeed a trace gas. It currently accounts for 0.039% of the atmosphere. Let’s assume you weigh 80kg. Eat 50 μg of Polonium-210 and it will kill you. That’s 0.0000000625% of your mass. So, what’s the relevance of anything being “trace”?

There is valid disagreement on how much the rapid increase in atmophereic C02 is affecting the earth’s climate. However, anyone who has looked at the issue carefully and still does not understand that most of the rapid increase in CO2 is due to human burning of fossil fuels has serious problems unstanding rather simple science.[how so? b.mod]
Reply: This was an inappropriate comment for a moderator to make ~ ctm

[blockquote]George E. Smith says:
September 16, 2010 at 9:22 am
[….] Why isn’t the ocean exchanging exactly the same isotopic CO2 with the atmospehre whether releasing or taking up ? [/blockquote]
Variations in biological activity at various depths and in different basins of the hydrosphere for one example.

George E. Smith said on Engelbeen on why he thinks the CO2 increase is man made (part 3)
September 16, 2010 at 9:22 am
There will be some fractionation each time CO2 is emitted from or absorbed by water because of the 45/44 molecular weights ratio. This fractionation process can explain the seasonal cycle just as well or better than seasonal growth cycle of plants. http://www.kidswincom.net/climate.pdf

BillD says:
September 16, 2010 at 10:27 am
There is valid disagreement on how much the rapid increase in atmophereic C02 is affecting the earth’s climate. However, anyone who has looked at the issue carefully and still does not understand that most of the rapid increase in CO2 is due to human burning of fossil fuels has serious problems unstanding rather simple science.[how so? b.mod]

No Bill. The argument made is a logical fallacy called an argument from ignorance. The carbon isotope ratios are analyzed, the sources of different istopes are analyzed, known natural sources are ruled out, and then the question is asked: If not fossil fuel then what else could it be?
The what else is methane which in less than 10 years degrades into water vapor and CO2 and most importantly for this discussion it causes the same isotope signature that burning of fossil causes. Some or even most of the 150% rise in atmospheric methane since the industrial revolution could be man-made. It’s estimated that the cattle industry contributes 16% of total annual emission. Anaerobic decomposition in landfills and other waste disposal generates methane. Methane is present in large quantities along with fossil fuel deposits. Methane vented from active coal mines contributes an estimated 10%. It is also released from oil wells and natural gas wells. As well it is released by thawing permafrost and warming ocean bottoms.
I was quite surprised to find that although the OP included a drawing showing methane as being twice as effective in abililty to alter carbon isotope ratios yet it was not even mentioned in the analysis – like the proverbial elephant in the room.
While there is no doubt in my mind that fossil fuel burning contributes to some fraction of the observed isotope ratios it’s pretty clear that methane does the same thing and in fact could be the dominant factor in changing carbon isotope ratio. Yet methane wasn’t even mentioned in the analysis!
Perhaps you or someone else can explain why the analysis failed to see the elephant sitting in the corner of the room.

I could be all wet here. So take this with a grain of salt. I had a hard time finding the answer. I found one source that talk about it. Humans respire 13CO2. Has anyone calculated the increase in this isotope as a function of the increasing animal population? With the greening of the planet, other animals that respire this isotope would also be more abundant given a more abundant food supply.
Could this be at least a part of the extra 13CO2 in the atmosphere?

The ratio of 12 to 13 is -.5%.
reference http://iopscience.iop.org/1063-7818/32/11/A08
World population between 1850 and 2011 has increased by 6 to 7 billion people.
reference http://geography.about.com/od/obtainpopulationdata/a/worldpopulation.htm
We breath out between 252 Kg/yr and 525Kg/yr. We make our own so there is not a balance between what we take in as food and what we breath out. This number has not considered the increase in all animal populations as a result of the greening of the planet.
reference http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_much_CO2_is_exhaled_by_the_average_human_each_year

I would like to ask one question – if all geologic carbon – coal, oil, carbonate etc., were in the atmosphere, what would the percentage of CO2 be?
Sorry, I meant I would like to ask two questions – how much hotter would it be then?

Chris Knight,
Look up the theories on the Earth’s atmosphere during the Hadean era. They’re based on the idea that most of the Earth’s carbonate resources were in the atmosphere.

Dan, your reply is too simplistic. Our isotopic ratio of what we breath out may or may not be based on what we breath in or eat. There are many variables to take into account related to exhaled composition and ratios of CO2.

R. Gates says:
September 16, 2010 at 12:08 pm
Only an extreme minority currently would ever seriously no doubt that human activity has caused the 40% increase in CO2 since the 1700′s. So while this is an interesting, and mostly accurate post

Yeah, “Only an extreme minority currently would ever seriously no doubt that” the Emperor is wearing no clothes.

Our conclusion: People are not responsible for the documented rise of carbon in the atmosphere.
Not only do the numbers fail to match, the numbers can’t be made to match.
Alan Siddons and Joe D’Aleo. Carbon Dioxide: The Houdini of Gases. September 05, 2007. http://www.ilovemycarbondioxide.com/pdf/Carbon_Dioxide_The_Houdini_of_Gases.pdf

I have never doubted that the increase in CO_2 levels was real, and that the burning of fossil fuels has contributed significantly to it. It is also clear to me that the Earth has warmed over the last quarter of the 20th century, although the extent of the warming is uncertain since the data has been manipulated in an untrustworthy way. I am doubtful that increased CO_2 is entirely responsible for the observed warming – in fact most of it seems to me to be cyclical and natural. The models are not worth spit and I believe the sensitivity of the climate to increased CO_2 has been considerably overtstated. I am extremely skeptical that the observed warming and higher CO_2 levels are likely to be harmful.
The point is that people are skeptical about different aspects of the AGW story. Since this is one aspect of the story about which I am not skeptical, it is interesting to watch the responses of those who are.

Trend without end, Amen.
All trends lead to Warming.
A trend for all seasons.
In Trends we Trust.
This Trend ain’t big enough for both of us.
——————-
Don’t trend on me.
Take this trend and shove it, I ain’t going there no more.
Trender Bender: When hysteria meet the brick wall of reality.
Take the last Trend to Warmsville, and I’ll meet you at the Glacier.
Four score and 7 Trends ago.

Jaraj V said, “It is beating a dead horse. Until someone recognizes the warming effect of additional CO2 in polar regions, which have low humidity and therefore the “greenhouse effect” should be strengthened most, the discussion is equal to “how many angels have to push planets to fly on their orbits.” ”
Let’s not forget that this warming in the Arctic would be rather weak. Who cares if it’s -31.0 rather than -31.1 deg C? It’s not going to change the climate that anyone would notice.
The Arctic ice melting depends largely on warm air from the South and not solar energy during the summer. The low angle, reflection, and travel distance through the atmosphere attenuate solar input to less than 3% of direct overhead sunlight. This energy, hitting water, would heat it ever so little and this energy would be lost to evaporative cooling almost immediately. Hitting ice, lot’s of reflection, little effect. Then, there is the occasional influx of warm water into the Arctic basin, very effectively melting the ice from below.
I wonder, so what if we increase CO2? It does not warm the climate in any way that makes detectable changes and it helps the plants, the marine life, the corals (acidification, if any at all, is trumped by adaptation and tolerance), and our food supply. There’s no down side here.

#
#
wsbriggs says:
September 16, 2010 at 5:28 am
My understanding, small though it may be, is that this paper is substantially challenged by Chiefio’s musings on the subject (sorry, I can’t find my pointer to the article). There, the discussion of the carbon isotope ratio covers also the behavior of plankton in the oceans, net, net, the ratio is not maintained.
_________________________________________________________
I have that pointer bookmarked
The Trouble With C12 C13 Ratios:
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/02/25/the-trouble-with-c12-c13-ratios/

Smokey:
“natural variablity” is not a theory. It is the absence of a theory. It is a statement that says “things change” which is pretty much a meaningless statement unless you put numbers on it. Things fall to earth is not a theory, although it is true. you seem to think that “natural variability” is somehow the logical opposite of AGW. Its not.
1. GHGs warm the planet AND the data show unexplained variability
when you can demonstrate that the above is false or that either side implies the negation of the other side, then you have something. Simply, it does not follow from the fact that GHGs warm the planet, that there will be no unexplained variability in the data. And neither does it follow from the observation of unexplained variability in the data that GHGs do not warm the planet. neither of these follow because both sides of the conjunction happen to be true.

[Just for Pamela: Did you have a great day?]
The CO2 atmospheric concentration plot seems to correlate most with an active ocean rather than industrial areas. For example, most of Europe shows low CO2 and so does eastern North America. The west coast of North America has very active sea life due to upwelling of deep ocean water there (cold). The Gulf Stream appears to have very high CO2 levels, as does the Mediterranean (both warm). The Western Pacific also has higher CO2 levels according to the map, and so does the eastern Indian ocean.
It isn’t at all clear that humans are responsible. The map does point to the oceans as being the prime source of CO2.
Interestingly, there are many areas with low CO2 concentrations. The tropical regions of South America, Africa, and Borneo. Equatorial waters seem to be sinks.
If you wanted to blame industrialization for CO2, why does Japan have such a low concentration? Why does the industrial area around Hong Kong have a lower CO2 concentration than California? Why does India seem to be more of a sink than a source despite having a population of about 1 billion people?
It appears far more likely that methane is the source of CO2, via methanotrophic bacteria. They are found in all waters, and are associated with methane vents such as the California coast from Santa Monica to Oregon, the mid-Atlantic ridge, and the Black Sea. See http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2446507/.
Mud volcanoes in the Mediterranean Sea produce very methane-rich sediments that are strongly depleted in 13C. See http://aem.asm.org/cgi/content/full/66/3/1126.
The Caspian Sea and the Sea of Okhotsk are also major sources of methane. These are both high CO2 features on the CO2 map. See http://books.google.com/books?id=r_2Ia8wOBlgC&pg=PA138&lpg=PA138&dq=methane+caspian+sea&source=bl&ots=0p6fuf40C8&sig=GnKSIBCGk8hIiqDPRgcqjE3ZJMQ&hl=en&ei=T4WSTIOLG42CsQPts5zACg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CCYQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=methane%20caspian%20sea&f=false.
If we could see the same map of methane distribution in the atmosphere, we would have our answer. It turns out we can. See http://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/browse/PIA09941.jpg.
But what does that image show? At first it appears that the test failed. But if you notice, the methane has highest concentrations surrounding the areas we noticed had high CO2 concentrations. Could it be that we are simply seeing depletion of methane by conversion to CO2? And there are other sources of methane, like Antarctica, where the CO2 conversion apparently doesn’t take place. How many methanotrophs would we expect to find in Antarctica?
It seems we keep over-estimating the impact of people. 7 billion people can’t do all that much compared to bacteria.

Speaking of Volcanoes:
The true extent to which the ocean bed is dotted with volcanoes has been revealed by researchers who have counted 201,055 underwater cones. This is over 10 times more than have been found before.
The team estimates that in total there could be about 3 million submarine volcanoes, 39,000 of which rise more than 1000 metres over the sea bed. http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn12218
Volcano Outgasing of CO2.
“The primary source of carbon/CO2 is outgassing from the Earth’s interior at midocean ridges, hotspot volcanoes, and subduction-related volcanic arcs. “http://www.columbia.edu/~vjd1/carbon.htm

Steven mosher says:
September 16, 2010 at 2:05 pm
Smokey:
“natural variablity” is not a theory. It is the absence of a theory. It is a statement that says “things change” which is pretty much a meaningless statement unless you put numbers on it. Things fall to earth is not a theory, although it is true. you seem to think that “natural variability” is somehow the logical opposite of AGW. Its not.
You are sailing very close to argumentum ad ignorantium, i.e.
“We won’t accept natural variability as an argument because:
it is not difficult to find some aspect of natural chaotic non-equilibrium emergent pattern variability that is not fully understood and mathematically described to the finest detail.”
Follow this logic and you will find we know nothing at all about anything.
Natural variability is a perfectly valid null hypothesis.
A null hypothesis is a valid way to approach any scientific question.
The CAGW hypothesis cannot survive the scientific process any more than anaerobic bacteria can survive in the presence of oxygen.

What does Steve McIntyre think about this?

Steven mosher says:
September 16, 2010 at 1:38 pm
Congrats Ferdinand.
I’ve enjoyed every one of your patient logical explanations.
I’m still waiting for someone to offer any evidence that burning fossil fuels will cause
a net decrease in C02.

Why would anyone in their right mind WANT to “cause a net decrease in CO2” and risk the extinction of photosynthetic plant life?
Increased plant growth encourages a greater mass of plant life to grow in previously marginal terrestrial and marine environments. The increased mass of plant life consumes more CO2. The increased rate of CO2 consumption maintains the CO2 concentrations at whatever minimum level the Plant Kingdom can no longer diminish. In the event of a sudden change of climate from a warmer inter-glacial period to a colder ice age, the disruption of the carbon cycle for plant life could result in =<~180ppm levels too low for photosynthesis and too fast for adaptation to avoid extinction.
Burning fossil fuels may or may not result in lower CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere, but it is not inconceivable for fossil fuels to stimulate enough new plant growth to generally maintain concentrations or lower them in some other circumstances.

3.0 Abusing Doctor Suess: Pulling the Cat out of the Hat
So far, the evidence presents the rather tantalizing implication that volcanogenic CO2 emission is a significant if not dominant contributor to atmospheric CO2 levels. The next logical step for those trying to prove that the CO2 rise is anthropogenic is to find a signature to fingerprint anthropogenic CO2 as separate from all other sources of CO2. The research of one Harmon Craig, first submitted for publication on ISO:1953-Apr-20, found that 13C & 14C are enriched in carbonates. Harmon Craig discusses the carbon dating errors that can be introduced by natural isotopic fractionation, along with other processes (Craig, 1954). While Rankama (1954), suggests that 13C depletion is characteristic of biogenic sources, Craig (1954) goes so far as to suggest the use of 13C as a tracer for 14C. This becomes the subject of research by Hans E. Suess into the contamination of 14C dates by variations in normal atmospheric 14C, which quantified the effect of processes discussed by Craig (1954). Part of Suess’ explanation of his own results was seized upon as a way to fingerprint fossil fuel CO2 because fossil fuels, being too old to contain measurable amounts of this cosmogenic isotope, will deplete atmospheric concentrations of 14C when burned. In Cleveland & Morris (2006, p. 427) Hans Suess and the Suess Effect, used to account for contamination of radiocarbon dates by various phenomena, are given the following entries:
Suess, Hans 1909-1993, U.S Chemist who developed an improved method of carbon-14 dating and used it to document that the burning of fossil fuels had a profound influence on the earth’s stocks and flows of carbon. (Fossil fuels are so ancient that they contain no C-14.)
………
Source : http://carbon-budget.geologist-1011.net/
REPLY: SNIPPED MAJORITY OF CONTENT – please don’t repost entire website stories here. That’s what links are for – Anthony

D. Patterson:
“Burning fossil fuels may or may not result in lower CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere, but it is not inconceivable for fossil fuels to stimulate enough new plant growth to generally maintain concentrations or lower them in some other circumstances.”
You missed the point. Absent any evidence that burning Fossil fuels causes a net decrease, absent ANY argument, I think the reasonable alternative is the obvious.
It causes a net increase. Now that obvious conclusion also happens to be supported by a wealth of evidence which our kind author has assembled over three posts. There is no evidence of a net decrease from burning FF, there is substantial ( but never conclusive) evidence that it causes a net increase. The possibility that you might doubt it, does not amount to an argument. So, I am waiting for someone to argue that it causes a decrease, and back that argument up.

Charles S. Opalek, PE says:
September 16, 2010 at 4:07 pm

Man contributes 3.27% of the CO2, Nature 96.73%. What’s the problem?

The problem is nature is evidently only sequestering 98.5% the total emissions each year and the remainder is accumulating as a rising atmospheric CO2 concentration. One of the least contestable facts in this matter is that atmospheric CO2 levels have began rising faster and faster since the beginning of the industrial revolution where human activity emits twice the amount it takes to account for the rise.
That in itself is very interesting as it raises the question of what’s happening in nature that is sequestering half of human emissions. Someone else mentioned in this thread, and I’ve brought up the point myself in other threads, that the ocean determines the equilibrium point of atmospheric CO2 and that if human contribution is absent the ocean would have outgassed more of its vast store (many times greater than the atmosphere) of CO2 and the current level would still be 380ppm and rising. The most likely suspect for a change in oceanic equilibrium point is that the Little Ice Age ended about the same time the industrial revolution started and the ocean’s delayed response to the end of several centuries of ice-age cold is raising the partial pressure equlibrium point of the ocean/atmosphere interface. This greater equilibrium point could be satisfied by either human contribution directly to the atmosphere or in the absence of human emission the ocean would have released the same amount.

Vince Causey – you are using an equation that gives the globally averaged forcing from a change in the global average CO2 concentration. Regional variations can’t, I don’t think, be evaluated in the same way.
Smokey: calculations by many groups of scientists have shown that natural variations cannot be the cause of the current warming. Roy Spencer must, I think, have his own idiosyncratic definition of “falsified”.

At one time, I was intrigued with the idea that the modern CO2 increase might be a result rather than a cause of the modern temperature increase, however the extreme sensitivity required to make this work when average global temperatures have only changed 0.6 to 0.7 degrees C on a base level of 14 degrees C since 1880 (I suspect many people probably believe this must have been at least a 3 degree C change to justify all the hype and alarm) means that the CO2 concentration temperature coefficient must be on the order of 170 ppm per deg C. At that rate, a 2.3 degree C average temperature drop would remove all the CO2 from the atmosphere. It seems quite unlikely that the CO2 concentration temperature sensitivity could be anywhere near this high.
The only other possible natural (or semi-natural if caused by the massive addition of dish-washing detergent to the ocean or deforestation policies on land) would be a large increase in the proportion of CO2 producing bio-forms (animals) as opposed to CO2 consuming bio-forms, (plants) perhaps as a global oceanic bloom of micro-organisms that exhale CO2.
As I understand the author’s article, he is saying that there is a distinction between inorganic and organic CO2 sources and the modern CO2 increases appear to have the signature of organic CO2. In my opinion that does not appear to rule the possibility of modern organic CO2 production-consumption imbalance making a major contribution to our observed CO2 increase. To exclude this possibility, one would have to show that the relative natural organic CO2 production and consumption rates have not changed in recent times.

Pamela:
Please let me try to explain from a completely different direction. Inspired air contains about 0.3 mmHg partial pressure CO2. Exhaled air is about 32 mmHg, so you breathe out air that has about 100 times as much CO2 as you inhale.
But this is not as relevant as the fact that you produce and exhale about .97 kg/day CO2, and it all comes from burning food, either plant or animal matter. That’s 354 kg/year CO2 per person. Fecal production is much smaller at about 0.18 kg/day. Therefore, the atmospheric CO2 you generate from burning food is almost completely returned to the atmosphere rather than stored in your body or dumped into the sewage system. So it doesn’t matter if humans can or do separate 12C from 13C, there would be little net effect on the atmosphere.

R. Gates says:
September 16, 2010 at 12:08 pm
If you believe what GCM’s say about the 40% increase in CO2 since the 1700′s, then the “so what” becomes the significant changes that are climate is undergoing and will be undergoing. If you don’t believe what the GCM’s are saying, then who cares if the CO2 levels are higher than they’ve been for hundreds of thousands of years.
Only an extreme minority currently would ever seriously no doubt that human activity has caused the 40% increase in CO2 since the 1700′s. So while this is an interesting, and mostly accurate post, it is hardly earth-shattering or particularily interesting. The core issue really is how sensitive is the climate system to this anthropogenic based increase in CO2. And of course the next step that some are working on already is some sort of geoengineering efforts to reduce the CO2 levels or mitigate their effects.
Well, golly gee by willikers, Mr. Gates!
.
Will you now commence to run around with your underwear over your head, screaming and screeching at the top of your lungs about how all that thar CO2 is a-going to kill us dead?
.
The way I see things is thusly: MORE CO2 is beneficial to man than LESS CO2, by dint of the fact that PLANTS NEED that gas to survive.
.
More plants = MORE food = HAPPY MAMMALS, avians and other creatures.
.
GOT A PROBLEM WITH THAT SITUATION, Mr. Gates?
.
Or are you one of them thar people-haters who want to conduct a Pol Pot-style GENOCIDE?
.
You’ll be telling us all about that, won’t you?
.
Real soon now?

Still don’t get it. Atmospheric % of CO2 is not anywhere near the % of CO2 in our exhaled breath. Let’s just stick to measuring two vials of air: ambient, and our exhaled breath. If it is a closed balanced system, the two should have equal concentrations. Yes?
There is evidence of a balanced system with vegetation. There is a seasonal variation in atmospheric % of CO2 that balances itself out by growth and decay of vegetation. This can be measured. We can even account for the greening of the planet. More CO2 is taken up, and the same amount is emitted upon decay. Why does this not apply to the animal kingdom? In the case of humans, we just keep populating the Earth more and more. It is not balanced. It would be like having an endless season of vegetative growth (or the reverse: decay) that never quits.
The population curve is interesting. If one were to assume that every person in the hockey stick “working” end is also now driving a car and heating their home with whatever fuel they prefer, it would make sense that a higher standard of living is at fault. But the population growth is NOT in countries with higher standards of living. What else is there about this mass of poorer throngs of humanity that could be emitting more CO2?

By the way, I’m not on a kick against having babies. Have however many you want. I’m just trying to explore all the possible sources of this increasing CO2, and that population curve is a very nice fit with the CO2 curve.

Here is the graph of CO2 increase compared to population increase over the same time period. Increased use of fossil fuels does not show the same hockey stick shape and I can’t find a 2000 year graph.
http://www.niwa.co.nz/our-science/climate/information-and-resources/clivar/gases
http://www.theoildrum.com/story/2005/12/18/1387/0641

Ferdinand,
1. The carbon deposits to call “fossil fuels” are not derived from recycled biomass or fossils – unless the laws of thermodynamics have changed.
2. The Carbon isotope ratios cannot discern biogenic from non biogenic sources, especially when an archaen diamond has “observation by Giardini & Melton6 that such cannot be considered a reliable criterion for ascertaining the origin of petroleum. Giardini & Melton took a primoridial natural diamond of 8.65 carats and measured the carbon isotope ratio of the CO2 entrapped in its inclusions. The results were an isotope ratio of –35.2% on the standard PeeDee scale. Previously the carbon isotope ratios more negative than – 18.0% had been assigned a biological origin. The diamond tested by Giardini & Melton was measured to be of an age of crystallization of at least 3.1 x 10^9 years, well before any record of biological life on Earth. The observation by Giardini & Melton destroyed any claimed validity of the carbon isotope ratio as a determinant of the origin of petroleum, – and probably of any other carbon compound.”
There is an outstanding prize of US$10,000 for anyone who can demonstrate empirically and experimentally that petroleum can spontaneously form from subjecting biomass to the pressures and temperatures typical for the bottom of sedimentary basins.
However, experimental evidence of the spontaneous production of hydrocarbons from a mixture of CaCO3, FeO and H20 has been published and replicated. The fossil fuelers, however, continue their assertions by resort to rhetoric or applying the logical fallacy of arguing the consequent.
QED.

Jean Parisot says:
September 16, 2010 at 7:17 pm
How is the uneven distribution of atmospheric CO2 factored into various IPCC models?
It isn’t. The models assume that the atmospheric gases are “well-mixed” and that distribution of mass is uniform, but they do take into account that the density of the
atmosphere decreases with altitude
As I mentioned above, high pressure cells have more mass than low pressure cells.
Water vapor lowers the density of air and there is no uniforn distribution of it in the lower atmosphere, i.e. below 30,000 ft.
The water droplets of clouds contain atmospheric gases including CO2 and the clouds can transport these gases to various locations. The amount of CO2 held in clouds would be difficult to estimate but it is not zero. Rain can “wash” CO2 out of the atmosphere.

John Whitman:
“Steven Mosher,
“I think your statement is not quite right. It appears to be that you are claiming that GHGs (all of them) combined with all other known and unknown processes involved in the earth system warm the planet. I do not think this has ever been demonstrated scientifically. By themselves in a simplified (non-realistic) scenarios without the total earth system processes included there have been discussions about possibility of GHGs warming the planet, maybe that is what you are thinking . . . . but they are just discussions. Your claim is often assumed / postulated /implied / believed . . . . . all those yes but demonstrated scientifically . . . no. If you can show it scientifically or cite papers that show it then please do so for everyone’s benefit. Then we will provide falsifications. Until then there is nothing for us to falsify.”
1. we know from physics that GHGs warm the planet.
2. There is no physical theory to even suggest that they cool the planet
3. The question is, how much
A. so small as to be non measureable
B. large enough to be measurable
Further, like many people you utterly misunderstand the the notion of “falsification.” no theory is falsified. Theories have to be “falsifiable.” That speaks only to this: they have to make statements that can be measured against observations. So simply the theory that holds that increasing GHGs will warm the planet is confirmed ( never proven) by our observations. Since 1850 ghgs have increased, so has the temperature. Further, if we try to predict the course of temperature from 1850 to today and hypothecate no forcing from C02 our predictions go horribly wrong. (see ch09 ar4) Absent any evidence or theory that GHGs cool the planet, and in light of theory and evidence that consistently claims they will, the balance of the evidence warrants the rational belief that they do. Theory predicts they will. they have.
“By just looking at the climate data (temps) there is nothing in it that proves GHGs warm the planet. It needs a theory to be developed and be stated as a hypothesis and be tested against the climate data.”
The theory that GHGs (like water vapor) warm the planet is well established and well developed. It’s been stated as a hypothesis for over a hundred years. the data confirms the theory. no theory is EVER proven. ever. We only have degrees of certitude. Is it logically possible that GHGs could not cause warming? sure. Is there any theory that suggest this? no. if there WAS, then that theory would be at odds with the last 160 years of data.
“As for natural variability, prior to man’s hypothesized influence , the climate sure did vary widely. The data shows that. No need for a theory and hypothesis to see that climate varied significantly before man’s influence . . . just look at the data. It had to be natural, no man influence. A hypothesis is only needed if you wish to understand why it varied and what natural variability consists of by mechanisms.”
i’m far more skeptical of data before 1900 than any of the so called skeptics here. nevertheless, as you point out, merely pointing to variability is no theory. For the incurious, I suppose one could observe that people get old and die. its natural. for the scientist, for the curious, its human nature to wonder why and to try to explain it. So, merely pointing at variability and grunting “nature” is not very interesting in my book but it seems to be enough for some folks. go figure.
John

intrepid_wanders says:
While I do understand the hypothesis that is being presented, there still remains the issue of “understanding” of isotopes specifically, carbon.
C-12 -> Stable
C-13 -> Stable
C-14 -> beta decay + N14
N-14 + n -> C-14 + H-1
B-13 -> C-13 + beta decay
So, the first thing that comes to mind is the source of C-13 is B-13 with an electron ejection (decay is tens of millisecs).
You’d also need something producing the boron 13 to decay to carbon 13. This production of carbon 13 would appear to be more likely to happen in stars than on the surface of Earth.
Conversion of nitrogen to carbon happens in the upper atmosphere, which is mostly nitrogen anyway. However carbon 14 has been found in fossil fuels. Coal is mostly carbon, oil is mostly carbon and hydrogen. So it appears that other nuclear reactions an create this isotope of carbon. If this is neutron capture such coal or oil may well contain more heavy carbon (and hydrogen) isotopes. But that not exposed to a source of neutrons would contain carbon from the original organic sources. These sources likely to be random and variable anyway.

Harvey says:
quote
I say ok, fine, show me your theory about what ELSE is causing CO2 increase, if not humans?
unquote
Reduced pull-down into deep ocean rather than increased output by humans. Pulldown mechanism tending towards heavier isotopes as diatoms and C4 phytoplankton take more of the load. You can find a recent report of phytoplankton population decline by Googling “Global phytoplankton decline over the past century
Daniel G. Boyce1, Marlon R. Lewis2 & Boris Worm1” and a general search will show you the carbon metabolic response of starved phytoplankton. The effects of human-induced dust increases can be found by searching for “Increasing eolian dust deposition in the western United States linked to human activity”, and further searches on the limitation of diatom populations by silica availability is easily done. From this information you may easily show that a) starved phytoplankton will pull down relatively more 13C and 14C b) diatom populations will increase relative to the calcareous phytos in an ocean which is being fed with more silica c) diatoms pull down more heavy isotopes of carbon compared to well-fed calcareous phytos.
Or:
Minute warming of deep ocean methane deposits by currents responding to the MWP. Increased metabolic activity by methanophages in response, emitting light isotope CO2. See graphs of warming followed by CO2 increase in many articles about historical CO2 levels, with the lag being hundreds of years.
Or:
Methane deposits in polar regions responding to reduced acid rain levels as pollution controls reduce sulphate emissions. More light signal methane emitted and metabolised by bacteria.
Or:
Oil and surfactant pollution of ocean surface means fewer breaking waves, less efficient entrainment of CO2 by bubbles and reduced dissolving of CO2. (Note that matches of ocean and atmosphere CO2 levels have been done in shallow water where mixing by wave action is assured.)
Or:
something we haven’t thought about.
Steven Mosher: you pride yourself on your rigorous take on the science, excoriating (rightly in my view but what do I know?) those who try to reject basic scientific facts like the greenhouse effect. Can I ask you to do something for me? Examine the graph above, (Fig 4, the sponge isotope data) and simply post here the dates at which you see the light isotope signal beginning. Three dates, of course, Jamaica, Pedro Bank and atmospheric.
Do any of your dates match Ferdinand’s assertion that :
quote
What we can see, is that the d13C levels as well as in the atmosphere as in the upper oceans ***start to decrease*** from 1850 on, that is at the start of the industrial revolution. In the 400 years before, there is only a small variation, probably caused by the temperature drop in the Little Ice Age.
unquote
TIA
JF
*** my emphasis

Steven mosher says:
September 16, 2010 at 10:40 pm
1. we know from physics that GHGs warm the planet.
2. There is no physical theory to even suggest that they cool the planet
3. The question is, how much
Wrong, wrong and wrong again!
http://www.spinonthat.com/CO2_files/The_Diurnal_Bulge_and_the_Fallacies_of_the_Greenhouse_Effect.html

mkelly says:
September 16, 2010 at 6:43 am
More molecules of water are added to atmosphere by at least 2:1 and reducing O2.

So if you are looking to prove AGW it would be sensible to monitor and track the levels of oxygen, carbon dioxide and water vapour in the atmosphere… simples… atmospheric changes would reflect the chemistry of burning fossils… simples… but no… the AGW argument seems to rest upon dubious measurements and proxies of unknown validity… I just don’t get it… more to the point: I just don’t buy it… and if the AGW theory was right then the real story would be about declining oxygen levels… so again I just don’t get it and I just won’t but it.
The oceans are massive temperature sensitive depositories of CO2… they absorb CO2 when they cool… and outgas CO2 when they warm… if the earth is warming then we should expect atmospheric CO2 levels to rise… and looking at the official data this is exactly what is happening… no surprise.. no problem.. and even if you think it is a problem (which is very unfortunately for you) it is a problem you can’t resolve because mankind is just too insignificant… as King Canute proved many centuries ago – man can’t command the tide. Now I have a lot of respect for King Canute… he didn’t use the tides – not a proxy for tides… he used actual observations – he didn’t fiddle with the high and low water mark readings… if only the AGWers had the same integrity as King Canute.
The more AGW tracts I read the more convinced I am that we are dealing with missionaries from the Victoria age… in those days white men wearing dog collars would sail away to some far flung continent and start talking to the indigenous heathens… there they would try to terrorise the uneducated locals with stories of a fiery hell and eternal damnation… and if they still didn’t convert then they would buy off the chief with some western trinkets.
In this day and age the AGW missionaries believe in their moral and intellectual superiority… they cloak themselves in the white coat of the scientist… and then they set sail to talk to the sheeple… again they try to terrorise the sheeple with their stories of how the earth is being turned into a fiery hell… and again if that doesn’t convert the indigenous heathens they start buying off leaders with money so the leaders can buy more western trinkets.

Ferdinand,
If it is possible to measure the changes in the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere to better than 0.1 ppm, why is it not possible to do the same for O2?

Louis Hissink,
“However, experimental evidence of the spontaneous production of hydrocarbons from a mixture of CaCO3, FeO and H20 has been published and replicated.”
While the abiogenic hypothesis is an intriguing one, and chemically plausible, opponents do have one serious criticism. That is, at the high temperatures associated with this inorganic reaction, the hydrocarbons rapidly breakdown. If true, I would say this is a serious problem.

Steven mosher,
“Similarly, I could predict that if you apply the brakes the car will slow down. Its not a counter argument for you to point out that other things can slow a car down, or that some cars in the past slowed down because they hit walls or ran out of gas, or ran out if gas while the brakes were being applied. GHGs warm the planet.”
Clever, but false analogy. We know that the car will slow down and stop if you apply the brakes. We don’t know that adding more CO2 will warm the planet at all because we don’t know the sign and magnitude of the feedbacks.
Pursuing your car analogy, we should envisage a car where the hydraulic cable feeding the brakes have holes, and the brake is connected to the throttle by some complex serious of interconnections, the aggregate result of which is unknown, and the driver is sitting on a chair affixed to the roof of the car and attempting to press the brake peddle with the handle of a broom (the last part thanks to Mr Bean).
That is the true CO2 analogy.

Dave Springer says:
September 17, 2010 at 5:56 am
when you know you have a valid … but he can dodge it….

Without a doubt anything can be dodged in the land of smoke and mirrors.

Folks, I think we are looking for a steady pump, not the up and down nature of ocean sinks, or even seasonal vegetation. What entity, what ecosystem, what area on this planet is steadily increasing in regular amounts day in and day out, and increasing each time at a fairly regular rate? Looking at graphs of things that increase, there is a near perfect match between CO2 and human population growth. So looking at human behavior is a reasonable place to look for a steadily increasing pump. The only thing I have found so far that is steadily increasing and that matches CO2 and is strong enough to overcome being washed out by rain or decreased by cold, or fluctuated by energy use, in other words is immediately replaced by more CO2, is exhaling CO2 out in a steadily growing population. What organism (or organisms) in the animal kingdom is undergoing a steadily increasing population that matches the CO2 graph?

When researching info for commenting on F.E.’s post, I ran across something that I had not seen before regarding the source of earth’s 13C and 12C.
In the following four reference links we can find that the solar wind is a source for 13C and 12C on earth. I take them as evidence that it arrives depleted in 13C when compare to earth’s isotopic standard pre-industrial ratio of 1 (13C) to 90 (12C). The ratio range of 13C and 12C from the solar wind look to be about the same ratio range as the 12C and 13C that F.E. says are from fossil fuel CO2 emissions.
Solar winds varying with Solar Cycles cause variation in deposition rates of 13C and 12C into the earth system. Those solar wind depositions on earth are in the same range of ratios of 13C and 12C as the range of ratios found in release of carbon by fossil fuel emissions.

http://solar-center.stanford.edu/FAQ/Qsolwindcomp.html
http://www.springerlink.com/content/4436600382381753/
http://www.als.lbl.gov/als/science/sci_archive/83spacedust.html
http://www.icsu-scope.org/downloadpubs/scope13/chapter02.html#fig2.1

I hope those links came out OK. : )
John

CO2 increases go up and down with sea temperature. For example In 2008 during the deep La Nina, in those months, the rise in CO2 was negligable. This is explained by the IPCC as the biosphere consuming more CO2 during La Nina cycles, because of the favourable weather that ensues. I question this particularly as this also occured after Pinatubo erruption. Erruptions cause a dimming and are quite different from the ENSO cycle. Well it now looks like we’ll be entering a minimum, maybe something approaching the Maunder minimum, as the sea surface temperatures plunge and the CO2 increase too ( as they have done in every other La Nina cycle), let us ponder for a moment whether the following scientific statement, really is as “fantastic” as everyone says it is:
http://www.biomind.de/realCO2/statements.htm
What fascinates me is that this statement was made in 2007, well before it was clear that the sun had gone quiet and there wasn’t a hint of a record breaking La Nina back then.

It seems like hardly a week goes by, without someone reporting the discovery of some new source of atmospheric CO2 or methane. Whether it is desert soils or whatever there just are so many diverse ways CO2 moves around in the environment. And of course one of those ways is our burning of fossil fuels; what about all the forests we burn too or that burn themselves; do they not also have a plant (fossil fuel) signature too ?
In any case; I’m simply not convinced that anybody has done anything like a credible accounting of all the carbon in the environment and the physics/chemistry of every exchange mechanism (with the atmosphere).
So yes I am not naive enough to believe that man’s burning of fossil fuels and forests is not adding some carbon to the atmosphere; but I haven’t seen any solid accounting, that would convince me that all of the increase is fossil fuel related; or forest burning related; I simply don’t believe we know.
But I do not believe that Ferdinand’s exposition here (which I think is very good and worthwhile) estabishes anything more than the obvious fact that fossil or other biological carbon is being released in the atmosphere as a result of human activites; and that isotopic signatures indicate that; but we already know we are doing that anyway. Most people from Africa have black skin; so what we already know that; we don’t have to do any DNA tests to demonstrate the obvious. same with atmospheric fossil CO2.
Africans do well pretty much anywhere they go in the world. Fossil CO2 works pretty much the same as any other CO2 in the atmosphere. Get used to it; there will be a lot bigger fraction of fossil CO2 in the atmospehre as we keep on burning it; and that will happen whether the total CO2 goes up or down or sideways; and if we start burning some of that Argon rich fossil fuel, then the Atmopsheric Argon will go up too.
Remember you read it first here on WUWT.

Sorry all for the late reply,
I was away for a trip to Brittany, just back now. My article was published a little early, so it will take some time to answer the most relevant questions.
About humans using wood, peat and other natural products from photosynthesis for steam and steel production and other industrial uses in the early days of the (pre) industrial period, and organics from plants and animals for cooking, food and breathing the CO2 out again: these show practically the same isotopic “fingerprint” as fossil fuels. The difference is that all the CO2 was incorporated in the organics not too long ago, some months (for food) to a few hundred years ago (for peat and wood), including the incorporation of preferentially 12C in the organics, leaving more 13CO2 in the atmosphere. When used for food or production, the same amount is ultimately returning to the atmosphere, giving back approximately the same isotopic composition as before. Thus using recent organics doesn’t change the total amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, neither the isotopic composition of carbon in the atmosphere.
Of course, this is not absolute, as some increasing amount of (12C depleted) carbon derivatives are stored in food/feed and body fat of animals and humans. I haven’t calculated these amounts, but I don’t think these are such enormous quantities, compared to the quantities of fossil fuel used for power and heating.
Even if it were enormous quantities, that is not relevant, as the oxygen use shows that there is more plant growth than that there is plant organics destruction: the latter includes all oxygen use from plant decay via soil microbes, methane seeping away from melting permafrost or sea bottom hydrates, burning coal heaps, huge forest fires, etc…
Except for methane (will be for next message), there is little difference between the isotopic composition of recent or fossil organics, but even if there was: the fact that there is more CO2 built in in recent organics than is produced by all other known (and unknown) natural processes together, only increases the 13C/12C ratio, while we measure a decrease. Thus with other words, recent vegetation is a net sink for CO2, not a source.

Dave Springer says:
September 17, 2010 at 6:17 am
“I disproved his hypothesis by showing that methane can produce the same signature.”
You are correct, methane, in the form of natural gas, is indeed a fossil fuel.

Dave Springer says:
September 16, 2010 at 4:17 pm
Methane forcing is about 20% of all GHG forcings. It has increased from about 700 to 1800 parts per billion in the last century or 4 times faster than CO2. Interestingly it decays into CO2 after ten years. So that means it has added CO2 to the atmosphere over the past century about 18000 parts per billion or 18 parts per million. This then accounts for over 20% of the increase in CO2 since pre-industrial times (87ppm).
Assuming the initial CH4 levels were stable ie. there was a natural and balanced methane cycle, I think you need to work on the net increase of atmospheric methane, 1100 ppb. You also need to calculate the CO2 contribution from the increased CH4 from the average value of the increased CH4 over the period, not the latest value, ie 550 ppb. so, with the CH4 resident time of 10 years, we get a 5500 ppb or 5.5 ppm increase in CO2 . But then we need to take into account that we’ve lost half the CH4 derived CO2 to sinks, so the atmospheric CO2 increase from atmospheric CH4 comes to about 2.75 ppm.

For anyone interested Battle’s modus operandi regarding the oxygen cycle can be viewed here:
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.129.4517&rep=rep1&type=pdf
GLOBAL BIOGEOCHEMICAL CYCLES, VOL. 20, GB1010, doi:10.1029/2005GB002534, 2006
Atmospheric potential oxygen: New
observations and their implications for some
atmospheric and oceanic models
snippage in quotes
“The APO data set described above is unprecedented
in its temporal and spatial coverage. Nonetheless, it remains
sparse in both senses.”
Sparse data. Check.
“2.4. Rejected Data
[27] Criteria for rejecting individual samples or replicate
pairs/triplets are discussed by Keeling et al. [1998] and
Bender et al. [2005]. In addition, we choose to omit four
more subsets of the data from further consideration.”
Cherry picking. Check.
“3.1. Detrending and Creation of a Climatology
[36] Determining the climatological gradient of APO
using both the PU and SIO data sets presents two
complications. First, APO exhibits a secular decrease,
due to the net effects of oceanic and fossil fuel uptake
and release of O2 and CO2. In order to reduce the 7-year
time series into a single climatological year, we need to
remove this trend. Second, the SIO and PU data sets of
O2/N2 are each referenced to an arbitrary standard that is
unique to the home laboratory [Keeling et al., 1998;
Bender et al., 1996].”
Adjust (pencil whip) the data. Check.
“3.2. Annual Mean Values From Interpolation
[38] As discussed above, the data set has limited spatial
coverage and substantial temporal unevenness. One way to
construct north-south gradients in the face of these limitations
is to treat the coordinate grid as two-dimensional
(sin(latitude) and time) and interpolate to regularly spaced
values on this grid.”
Fill in the gaps in coverage by using the closest measurement. Check.
“3.3. Annual Mean Values From Seasonal Cycles
[42] We also consider an alternative approach to constructing
north-south gradients from sparse data. We divide
the shipboard data into 8 groups: 30, 20, 10 N and S, 0–
9N, and 0–9S. For each group we calculate a seasonal
cycle with a constant offset. These offsets are the annual
mean values for each interval.”
Replace pesky unknown variables with constants. Check.
“5. Modeling
[48] In order to begin understanding the processes that
lead to the patterns of APO that we observe, we have
employed an updated version of the modeling approach of
Gruber ’01.”
Build a computer model and monkey around with it until generates some of the pencil whipped data set. Check.
“[65] There are at least two possible causes for the datamodel
discrepancy in the size of the bulge. First, the
modeled transport in the atmosphere may be too vigorous,
either poleward or vertically. If so, the calculated peak will
be attenuated. Second, as discussed by Gruber ’01, the
regions for which the air-sea O2 fluxes are determined are
probably too coarse to allow the atmospheric transport
model to capture the detailed structure of O2 in the immediate
vicinity of the equator.”
Wave hands around offering possible explanations for why the model output doesn’t match reality. Check.
“[86] We look forward to continued improvement in data
coverage and quality, both temporally and spatially. With
longer records, we will have the opportunity to determine
the factors that control interannual variations in the APO
gradients we have characterized. Better spatial coverage,
particularly beyond the Pacific basin, will improve our
ability to test zonal transport and vertical mixing over
continents in atmospheric transport models and make our
test of air-sea flux fields far more stringent. Finally, reduction
in site-to-site biases through improved and automated
collection equipment will strengthen all of the analyses
presented here.”
Wrap up by asking for more funding. Checkarooni.
Welcome to climate [post-normal] science – the biggest house of cards ever constructed.

Several objected to the “elephant in the room” problem: the oxydation of natural methane to CO2 which has a much lower 13C/12C ratio than CO2 coming from oil or coal.
But there is a problem with this elephant:
More than half of the body parts of the elephant are human manifactured.
Methane is easely measured in ice cores and follows the temperature proxy even better than CO2. The previous interglacial, the Eemian was some 2°C warmer than the current warm period, the Holocene. That also included that Nordic areas were much warmer than today, with forests reaching the Arctic Ocean.
Anyway, all possible natural sources of methane were at work at higher temperatures than today. The maximum CH4 level during the warmest period was some 700 ppbv. Of course, the resolution was quite coarse: 600 years average. See:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/eemian.html
Today, we measure some 1600-1900 ppbv. As good as for the CO2 record, the CH4 record shows a typical “hockeystick”, be it starting a little earlier, around 1750 (or even before). Maybe caused by intensivation of agriculture and feedstock expansion. See:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/law_dome_ch4.jpg
In this case, the resolution of the the DSS ice core record is some 21 years, and for the other two ice cores it is 8 years.
The interesting point is that the pre-1750 period shows only 600-700 ppbv of methane, similar levels as in the Eemian, but with a much better resolution. The 1,000 years Law Dome DSS core CH4 measurements were recently expanded to 2,000 years ((MacFarling Meure et al. 2006), see:
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/antarctica/law/law2006.txt
also available as Excel file:
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/antarctica/law/law2006.xls
The same result: 600-700 ppbv methane…
Thus it seems that the excess over 600-700 ppbv is all human made, mostly in the most recent period. Any influence on d13C levels, beyond the variablility of the natural influx of methane (+/- 40 ppbv around the average CH4 level in the past) is thus also human-made.

Dave Springer says:
September 16, 2010 at 4:17 pm
Methane forcing is about 20% of all GHG forcings. It has increased from about 700 to 1800 parts per billion in the last century or 4 times faster than CO2. Interestingly it decays into CO2 after ten years. So that means it has added CO2 to the atmosphere over the past century about 18000 parts per billion or 18 parts per million. This then accounts for over 20% of the increase in CO2 since pre-industrial times (87ppm).
There is some error in reasoning here: input is not accumulation! In the same 100 years, the total input of CO2 from fossil fuel burning was some 150 ppmv, that didn’t give more than the same 87 ppmv increase of CO2 in the atmosphere… That is not including land use changes, which indeed also add (an uncertain) amount of CO2 to the atmosphere.
Further, one need to make a differentiation between the natural CH4 supply and the human-made excess in CH4.
In pre-industrial times there was some kind of equilibrium between methane production, the CO2 cycle and the isotopic levels, all three influenced by temperature as main driver of the changes. When the temperature was maintained over a longer period (either glacial or interglacial), CO2 levels, methane levels and isotope ratio’s all show more or less stable figures, with only small excursions around those levels. That means that the constant supply of methane and its degradation to CO2 and the influence of the isotopic changes because of methane degradation was compensated somewhere in the whole carbon cycle. And that the supply of methane to maintain the 600-700 ppbv methane level in the atmosphere had no influence on either total CO2 level or isotopic level.
In current times, all three variables show changes far beyond what temperature influences showed in the past. Will see what I can make of it tomorrow for the 13C/12C ratio’s, it’s getting late here…
Your idea to tackle methane first was proposed by James Hansen not so long ago, indeed as that is easier to do than for CO2. One of the reasons that methane increase is leveling off may be that rice cultivating is more and more using “dry” methods, where less water is used for shorter periods…

@Engelbeen
“Several objected to the “elephant in the room” problem: the oxydation of natural methane to CO2 which has a much lower 13C/12C ratio than CO2 coming from oil or coal.”
“But there is a problem with this elephant:
More than half of the body parts of the elephant are human manifactured.”
I never claimed that the methane rise of 150% since 1850 was not anthropogenic in part or in whole. In fact I noted the correlation between the methane rise and the beginning of the industrial revolution and noted some known sources like blow-off from oil wells that’s neither burned nor captured and used as natural gas and of course an estimated 16% is from the modern cattle industry which kicked into high gear concommitant with the beginning of the industrial revolution.
I also noted that it appeared that if one’s interest was truly in limiting the greenhouse effect then methane is by far the first GHG you want to target. At least with coal, oil, and natural gas we get substantial value out of its combustion. We aren’t gettting jack diddly squat in comparison from methane emissions.
This is simply illustrative of the fact that AGW has a designated bogeyman – fossil fuel combustion – and the designation is a political/ideological decision. In any sane scientific or engineering analysis limiting methane emission is where to get the most return for the least disruption. The fact of the matter is that disruption of the status quo (plus never ending funding for more research) is exactly what motivates the whole AGW charade. You can’t modify and control civilization by controlling methane emissions but you can with CO2 – it’s the designated scapegoat.

@Engelbeen
Ah, I knew I read it somewhere:
http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~archer/reprints/archer.2008.tail_implications.pdf
“The rate of natural CO2 uptake in any given year is not determined by the CO2 emissions in that particular year, but rather by the excess of CO2 in the atmosphere that has accumulated over the past century.”
I’m not sure I agree with that but it disputes your position that accumulation doesn’t count. What I am sure of is that CO2 in the stratosphere has a rather long lifetime due to very limited mixing with the troposphere and the bottom of the troposphere is where all the CO2 sinks exist. CO2 from fossil fuel combustion is almost literally done right on top of carbon sinks (like the nearest green thing or body of water) but CO2 from methane degradation in the stratosphere takes at least decades to reach a carbon sink.

My understanding is that proposals for one of the major changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide highlight Mother Nature’s invention of the tree maybe 380 million years ago. Trees are capable of turning over all sorts of soils and breaking rock with their roots. The thought is that the rate of soil and rock weathering, the sequestering of carbon dioxide into carbonates by interaction of atmospheric carbon dioxide with water and soil, increased five-fold due to the increased reaction area created by the turning action of tree roots, eventually dropping the world into a major ice age. ( A seemingly humorous extension of the model is that temperatures went back up when insects came along to eat the trees!) This sequestration process has been in operation since the world began and it is estimated that the amount of carbonates sequestered by this process as well as life processes is now thought to be close to 100 million gigatons, swamping the ocean sink by a factor of 2500:1. Carbonate sequested for millions or billions of years would have no carbon 14 whatsoever. My short investigation ( I am no expert) indicates that much less than a gigaton of carbon dioxide is thought to be released each year by dissolution of this carbonate, especially through volcanic action. Does this low projected value make sense? It seems to me that 1gt noise on 100,000,000gt is a mighty small number.

matthu says:
September 16, 2010 at 4:17 am
I am just wondering whether there is any possibility of greater absorption of d12C in the oceans which might affect the balance? (This is not my area of expertise – so I am simply expressing curiosity here.)
Indeed there is a two-way fractionation of carbon isotopes between water and air at the water-air border. In both cases, the lighter isotope migrates faster than the heavier ones. The fractionation gives a depletion of -10 per mil for the ocean-air transfer and -2 per mil for the air-ocean transfer. Thus a complete cycle decreases the isotopic level of the atmosphere with about -8 per mil compared to the oceans. See:
http://dge.stanford.edu/SCOPE/SCOPE_16/SCOPE_16_1.5.05_Siegenthaler_249-257.pdf
For deep ocean upwelling (0 to +1 per mil) that means some -8 to -7 per mil in the atmosphere, while biolife in the upper oceans increase the d13C value to +1 to +5 per mil, thus upper ocean-air exchanges over the seasons give -7 to -3 per mil d13C levels in the atmosphere.
That made that the pre-industrial atmosphere in average was at about -6.4 per mil. As we are currently at -8 per mil, any extra upwelling of the deep oceans or increase in temperature of the ocean surface would increase the per mil of the atmosphere…